Motor Magazine....Did they get it WRONG???

[gavs]

Hi all Mk4 owners,

I was reading the latest issue of motor the other day and they did several comparos of cars from the past decade, one of which was the 2000 Mk4 GTi and the new Mk6 GTi. After reading the article where, to sum it up, they said the Mk4 GTi was not very good, I looked in the specification tables at the end of the article and read this under suspension:
FRONT:
Macpherson Struts, Coil springs, Anti roll bar.
REAR:
Torsion Beam, Coil Springs, Anti roll bar.

Whhhaaatt? Did I miss something here???? As far as I know from this forum, with several Mk4 GTi owners present, was it not only the Mk4 R32 that came with a factory fitted anti roll bar??? Or have I been mistaken for the past couple of years????

[Guy_H]

It does have a roll bar in the rear, but its an internal torsional version (from memory) - inside the rear axle beam.

[No457 Snowy]

Agreed Gavs,

I reckon they got that rear anti-roll bar wrong. (EDIT: Just read Guy's post and didn't know about the internal bar)

I haven't read the article so I don't know what the goal of the comparison was, but what result did they expect comparing a model/technology almost 12 years old to a brand new model?

I know the MK4 GTI was sluggish/fat, but at the time I think VW was more concerned with adding a new level of creature comforts and giving Golf owners a new taste of some level of luxury as opposed to outright performance.

Even now, after getting out of local/imported new small cars, I get in my 2004 GTI and marvel how comfortable it is to drive, and the quality/design of the interior/plastics and how for not a huge amount of cash spent on suspension/chipping/wheels etc, I've created my own little bit of Euro heaven. Warts n All.


Cheers,

Snowy

[gavs]

Yeah, that's basically what they said is that it is still a great car in terms of it's comfort and perceived quality, but as a performance car they said it was rubbish.

Guy, I see what you're saying, but I don't see how an anti roll bar can be fitted inside the torsion beam and still be effectively refered to as an anti roll bar as the point of an anti roll bar (as you and alot of others will know) is to increase the spring rate between the tow sprung sides of the axle, hence limiting body roll and articulation between each wheel........ You will have had FAAAAAAAAAR more experience on this topic than me, most of mine has stemmed from my own car and text books...

Maybe I should read "Race car vehicle dynamics" by Millken and Millken..... It's sitting on my desk but I can't psych myself to read it fully!

[Guy_H]

Thats a good book - worth reading, but a Bit OTT in some ways - great for actual chassis design & taking into account bracing....

I suppose its all marketing, but certainly it does stop roll by increasing spring rate (as does all types of anti roll bar by different leverage methods). Back in 99' when we first received our new GTI the only option we could get was a bigger, stronger version of torsion setup & it made a huge difference to the handling!

You will be amazed at the amount of twist that beam does have when going through a corner

[gavs]

Yeah, was just talking to our head suspension engineer here at work about it and basically what he said is that VW are full of crap because the torsion beam is fundamentally an anti-roll bar but a not overly effective one! He's been for a ride in my Golf with the whiteline ARB fitted and was shocked at the difference it made!

[Timbo]

The whole article was a bit weak, IMO. But I guess all they were trying to show was the extent to which things have changed in 10 years. I don't think the MkIV was too heavily criticised. It could have been worse...we could all be MY2010 WRX owners

[noone]

Yeah, was just talking to our head suspension engineer here at work about it and basically what he said is that VW are full of crap because the torsion beam is fundamentally an anti-roll bar but a not overly effective one! He's been for a ride in my Golf with the whiteline ARB fitted and was shocked at the difference it made!

Have to remember, they are designing the car to be comfortable, reliable, predictable and cost effective. If they sold the car with the swaybar as you like it, they may have warranty issues, comfort issues and additional accidents which they may be somewhat liable for...

Dont get me wrong, I drive a Polo with RSB, upgraded FSB, etc, but VW don't make their rides uncomfortably hard stock...

[gavs]

Noone mate, you are exactly right. They made the Mk4 GTi as a more "sophisticated" car and focused on comfort and after the journos around the world critcising it from pillar to post, the Mk5 came out withe a different and more hardcore setup which resulted in glowing reviews that they had finally returned to the core GTi principle of a small car being able to handle a twisty mountain road with aplomb.

Timbo, I agree, I had a current WRX given to me by Subaru for a day, to do with it as I wish and I reckon it was one of the worst cars I've driven! It rolled around, the gearshift was notchy as all hell, the steering had no feel whatsoever and the thing would understeer on corner entry, then oversteer on the way out!! Either I got a dodgy example or the motoring press is full of crap!

[beeza]

the torsion beam is fundamentally an anti-roll bar but a not overly effective one! He's been for a ride in my Golf with the whiteline ARB fitted and was shocked at the difference it made!

My Cupra Sport which basically has the Mk3 rear setup (which is very similar if not the same as a Mk4) has an internal roll bar. If you look hard enough you can actually see it in there. I also upgraded my rear bar to a 27mm item and also have a 24mm front. The handling with just the bars fitted were an incredible improvement. VWs seem to respond incredibly well to this kind of modification

[Mr Messy]

The whole article was a bit weak, IMO. But I guess all they were trying to show was the extent to which things have changed in 10 years. I don't think the MkIV was too heavily criticised. It could have been worse...we could all be MY2010 WRX owners

It was my car they used, and it was an interesting experience. Basically the Motor man got in and drove like his balls were on fire, and drove the MKVI GTI back to back on the same road in a similar fashion.

He and another scribe drove the cars back to back, cat-and-mouse and then exchanged notes. I also drove the MKVI briskly, but not as hard as they did.

In a debrief I said Volkswagen have changed tack since the MK4 GTI came out. The MK4 GTI is not a competitor to the WRX, 200SX or Integra Type R, and (in my opinion) nor was it intended to be. The Mk5 and Mk6 GTI, while also refined, are a more further honed weapon far better suited to thrashing than the more pedestrian MK4.

I told the Motor boys that I cross-shopped my car against the Impreza RS, Liberty 2.5 manual and Mazda6 manual. I said I purchased the GTI because its interior is a lovely place to be, because the engine is fairly smooth and torquey and because the car is comfortable and effortless on long drives.

Motoring writers are an interesting bunch. I've met several, and some seem to have a pretty warped sense of reality. The bloke who wrote the GTI comparison had freshly returned from setting 3.2 second 0-100 times with the new 911 Turbo in Portugal. On the day I met him he arrived in a brand new Mazda MPS and jumped into my unchipped GTI, which he then compared with a fresh MK6.

Motoring journos usually drive a car for a whole day, or even a week. Mine was thrashed for about ninety minutes on very twisty roads in the Royal National Park, and compared back-to-back with a newer, stiffer, faster and sexier sibling.

It got cained under those circumstances but it doesn't bother me as I didn't buy the car as a targa weapon or something to go bothering Skylines with.

I love my car and after 18 months I still enjoy driving it. My next car will probably also be a turbocharged VW.

[gareth_oau]

how did you get your car to be chosen?

[No457 Snowy]

I suspected as much, thanks for giving us the inside story mate.

Not sure how they justify comparing a 10 year old car who's original focus was on introducing increased creature comforts with a zippy turbo motor to the small car market to a brand new more performance focused release.

Two different intended targets 10 years apart really = irrelevant.


Cheers,

Snowy

[sir_camel]

When i had my 205 GTi there was a comparo in Motor between 205 GTi (20 yr old), 206 GTi (almost 10) and the new 207GTi. Whilst Peugeot had not made as significant change (got much fatter though) in what they intended each of these cars to be it was still interesting reading. Obviously a straight out comparison will never be fair but taking into account their ages it was a very fair and well balanced article.

[gavs]

Snowy, after reading the article, it's not really a comparison per-say of the 2 cars, it's more along the lines of seeing how the model has evolved or in the case of the wrx, de-evolved (or whatever the opposite of evolved is!) over the past decade and if it has been a favourable change. Basically, they shed it in a favourable light for all it's good points (build quality, fit and finish, creature comforts etc) but they just said that it's comfort-biased approach isn't what they wanted out of a GTi.